A-400 tanker, first plug
 

First plug from the A-400.

A400M acts as tanker aircraft for first time - IHS Jane's 360

I think the UK really got hosed (pun intended) by the air tanker contract prohibiting the UK A-400's to be equipped with the gear to pass gas. Could have been a huge force multiplyer for contigencies like Falklands II, Iraq III, etc etc.

I have said this alot, we did not need the FSTA! :ugh:
I have also said that the PFI contract will be substantially changed before long. How much will that cost us?:oh:

OAP

Does the PFI contract prohibit the use of the RAF A400M for AAR, or does it give AirTanker first dibs on providing any increase in UK AAR requirements?

A-400 tanker, first plug
 

Why is FSTA not needed, surely it's just a replacement for the VC10/Tristar fleet ?

I found this bit interesting:

I can see the drogue's under the wings, but not the probe's. :cool:

You were wrong then and you are wrong now.:rolleyes: 6 shagged out, old, single hose tankers do not an AAR capability make! Of course we needed a new tanker aircraft, something was needed to provide us with a more modern capability; something was needed to replace the 26 VC10 tankers we had!!

Ian: "probe and drogue" refers to the totality of the system; strangely though you never here of the alternative referred to as the "boom and UARRSI" system!

The system is called "probe & drogue". It implies the probe is on the receiver, the drogue on the tanker.

The A400 in the picture does have a probe on the front.



edit: Damn....beaten to it.

Quote Roland P. "Of course we needed a new tanker aircraft, something was needed to provide us with a more modern capability; something was needed to replace the 26 VC10 tankers we had!!"

As I have said, a VFM TriStar fleet enhancement (similar to the Marshalls proposal) would have been quite sufficient to match what the FSTA capability is , for the next 10 years. Coupled with the flexibility of some A400M tankers;). Don't forget, an FSTA Tanker sits on the ground at MPA at huge expense.

What is this? "Modern Capability"? A tanker is really just a crate to lug fuel where it is needed, with some military kit scabbed on to give some survivability and mission enhancement. IMO, the TriStar was far better equipped than FSTA.....you can tell me why it is! Maybe you don't know? Maybe the USAF are wrong to still have fleets of KC135 and KC10?
Cheers


OAP

Onceapilot wrote: Nope, totally wrong. 'VFM' and 'TriStar' in the same sentence as '10 years' is shockingly naïve. The general ageing and paucity of spares holdings would have been a bottomless money pit in fleet sustainability terms - and the single hose restriction with Eurofighter would have limited the old things' viability in trail operations.

It had its day. It's gone. Voyager isn't perfect (particularly due to the PFI.....), but I do agree that at least some of the UK's Atlas fleet should be tanker-capable for theatres such as the South Atlantic.

Utter bolleaux! I can assure that RolyP most certainly does know the subject under discussion.

Yes - that's why they're so desperate to get KC-46A into service - the cost of maintaining a fleet of geriatric jets is becoming very painful!

All bluster Beagle!;)
You are wrong in every paragraph.
The life and spares holdings for TriStar were purely driven by the RAF. Cost would rise with age. Perhaps you could comment upon the relative cost/VFM of the VC10?
Better equipped? Lets face it, we are not going to talk specifics here but, I stand by my claim, and we are not talking about seat fabric!:=
Geriatric jets? Pull the other one! The TriStar left service with no limitations on its full RTS (G limits etc).
I do not blame you for being biased towards bigging-up the type of newer aircraft you might be earning a living from but, it does weaken your position.;)

PS, I have no idea who RP is, I take his comments at face value.

OAP

Swivel on that finger!

Your stuck-in-the-groove comments about the old TriStar have reached PLE - and you need to accept that it has gone.

And no, I am not 'making a living' from 'bigging up' modern aircraft.

Cheers Beags, no offence taken!:ok:

OAP

Prevented?
 

Maybe to fixed wing, but hopefully not to helos……………….

I am interested to know what type of cars some of you drive
Do you think a Hillman Avenger is a good thing to bash up and down the motorway (Hillman Avenger first introduced 1970 same year as the Tristars first flight)
Or perhaps you feel something more modern like an Austin Montego is the thing to have (introduced 1984 same years as Tristar into RAF service)

In either case you could always drop a DVD player and a digital clock in tothe dashboard then it would be as good as a Ford Mondeo wouldn't it ???

(and to be pedantic you could always have a Volvo 850, same intro year as A330s first flight 1992)

That's not helpful as that isn't how the RAF buy or operate aircraft, as I'm sure you realise :)

The RAF would buy the avenger second hand when it was worn out. Fit the Volvo 850 engine and instrument cluster from the mondeo but then realise the new additions wouldn't fit. The engine would need an electronic control unit and the speedo etc would be electronic and not controlled by a cable. They would then leave it for a while to avoid embarrassing the senior officers to decided on the new equipment fit. Then the RAF would decide to retrofit the old equipment so this would allow the avenger to become operational. It may have only paid to buy the car, paid to modify it and then pay again to retrofit the original equipment but the government of the day may be able to announce the now old but working cars a second time as a new buy :)

It's always worth bearing in mind this old but true statement regarding the RAF:
If the the RAF wanted a dog they would buy a cat and then operate on it.

Not forgetting of course that the extra cost would be dismissed as irrelevant since it would come out of a different budget.

PS What is wrong with an Avenger-mine only let me down weekly!

Barnstormer - absolutely spot on.

How many times do we have to learn the lessons of prevous procurement cock ups. There is a reason why commercial operators buu new kit. It is more serviceable, cheaper and more efficient to operate. It's one thing to be dewy eyed at the end of an era as another aircraft is withdrawn from service, however, why can not the military accept that updating and upgrading old kit does not work? Buying new kit is the answer but not on stupid PFI contracts.

Anyone know what Mission Planning System the A-400M uses for AAR?

TLAR?

Or perhaps «Ça marche!»